The recent repeal of the government’s legislation requiring us to wear seat belts in buses brings to our attention its policy on and commitment to public consultation.
As far as I am aware, the authorities’ last statement on public consultation was the General Circular No. 7/2008, updated and reissued in 2018, entitled “Public Opinion.” In this document, the director of administration said in Paragraph 2: “It is the Government’s declared policy to be, as far as possible, open and transparent, and to be accountable to the public.”
Paragraph 3 lays out the value of public consultation:
“A careful assessment of public opinion, obtained through consultation and analysis, should help the Government understand the likely reaction of the community to any proposed course of action or change of policy. Public debate assists both in achieving consensus on the direction of public policy and in securing acceptance of unpopular but unavoidable measures. Where measures proposed are known to be unpopular but unavoidable, it is particularly important that the Government consults in a timely and thorough way and is seen to have done so.”
It is likely that the public can accept wearing seat belts on buses. After all, we wear them in taxis and private cars. The policy, while it may be unpopular in the sense that it will require us to change our habits, is unlikely to have been wildly unpopular. Still, the government needs an honest and fair assessment of the likely public reaction.
Paragraph 3 concludes: “A good public airing of the issues in advance is more likely to gain understanding and acceptance of the measures eventually adopted than secrecy and surprise.” We would all agree.
The circular lays down certain very sensible principles: timeliness (consult as early as possible), clearly state the purpose of consultation, consult as “widely as possible,” present all relevant information, and give “adequate” publicity to the consultation exercise.
That is, in the words of the government (Paragraph 4): “It goes without saying that consultation exercises should be carried out as thoroughly as possible.” And “it is of equal importance that the Government should be seen to be sincere and genuine in conducting consultation.” This is to “maintain the public’s confidence that the government is committed to listening to different views”.
These are laudable goals and recommendations.
In the circular, the government identifies those to be consulted: district councils, district offices, advisory boards and committees (perhaps the Transport Advisory Committee in this case), Legislative Council (LegCo) panels, other organisations, parties and individuals.
Of LegCo panels (such as the Transport Panel), the circular observes the value of consulting panel members. “Such panels, usually composed of a mix of independent members and members with different political backgrounds, can also serve as barometers to gauge the degree of LegCo’s support for the proposal when its endorsement is required.”
Bureaux and departments have discretion to determine which organisations and individuals to consult. “But the general rule should be that particular care should be taken to seek the views of those directly affected by a proposal as far as possible,” in this case, the bus-riding public.
Last month, when the legislation was due to be implemented, public confusion reigned. Does the seat belt rule apply to all buses or only to those registered after January 25, 2026, as the legislation appeared to require? How can passengers know when the bus was registered? Does the rule apply to all buses regardless of registration date, as some government officials said? Subsequently, the authorities repealed the legislation in a costly U-turn.
The authorities urge LegCo to actively and enthusiastically support the government. When LegCo considered the legislation in September 2025, no member dissented or raised any questions.
The authorities should show us the benefits of the claimed diversity of LegCo opinions. In the bus seat belt saga, LegCo’s unquestioning support served neither the government nor the community.
Given the lockstep between the government and our opposition-free LegCo, authentic and thorough public consultation is even more necessary.
U-turns are costly. Not only do they waste resources and time, undermining the authorities’ stated desire for quick results, but, more importantly, they also damage the government’s reputation. The government appears not to know what it is doing.
To rebuild credibility, officials may explain whom they consulted. How did authorities assess likely public reaction? Why were these probably perfunctory assessments inadequate? What steps will the authorities take in the future to improve? The government may also consider updating and reissuing its own policy guidance on engaging the public.
The authorities should follow their own guidelines and be seen to do so, thereby more effectively balancing the needs for public support and quick results. Because most public policy is co-produced, the authorities need citizens’ support. Is the government still committed to being “as far as possible, open and transparent, and to be accountable to the public?”
More effective public consultation could ensure fewer government mistakes in the future for the benefit of us all.
| HKFP is an impartial platform & does not necessarily share the views of opinion writers or advertisers. HKFP presents a diversity of views & regularly invites figures across the political spectrum to write for us. Press freedom is guaranteed under the Basic Law, security law, Bill of Rights and Chinese constitution. Opinion pieces aim to constructively point out errors or defects in the government, law or policies, or aim to suggest ideas or alterations via legal means without an intention of hatred, discontent or hostility against the authorities or other communities. |